Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Scope Of Review Is Narrow, And It Is Allowed Only On Specific Grounds: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld its decision on review petitions, highlighting the limited scope of the review process. The judgment, delivered by Bench BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. On October 31, 2023, reaffirmed the principles governing the review of judgments in the country.

The Court observed that the power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, but it is subject to specific laws and rules, including the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review process is intended to correct manifest errors and not to reargue the case.

Supreme Court Stated that the , “The scope of review is narrow, and it is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record.” The Court emphasized that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength, and subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches cannot, by themselves, be grounds for review.

The judgment in question pertained to review petitions filed by parties aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated September 6, 2022, in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment, which had meticulously considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the limited scope of the review process and emphasizes that a review can only be sought on specific grounds related to errors in the judgment. This decision serves as an important precedent for future review petitions in the country.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2023

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.   

Similar News